On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Chet Farmer <chet at nogators.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Williams wrote:
>> Let's compare to a Wordpress blog run on Apache using mod_php. The PHP
>> code does not serves all requests. Apache serves up the static content
>> (css, javascript, graphics, etc.). Many popular front-end servers also
>> perform proxying and load balancing, and tons of other functions.
>> Mod_php just runs the PHP code. Most Ruby web apps are served in this
>> fashion rather than by an Apache module because it was easier to
>> implement
>> This must be some radical other definition of "easier."
At the time Mongrel came around, no one, and I mean no one, would
touch the mod_ruby code. Webrick was slow and FastCGI was very buggy
at best. Zed Shaw stepped up with a strictly-spec-compliant and fast
web server for Ruby. There was much rejoicing and dancing in the
streets. You can call it radical if you want to, but it worked very
well.
>>> (at the time mod_ruby was a memory-leaking nightmare) and it
>> is a more flexible design by virtue of not being tied to Apache and by
>> being proxyable behind any decent http proxy.
>>>> It's not a bad idea, it's a sound idea. Please settle down and ask
>> polite questions if you truly want to understand and use Typo.
>> If you really think I'm the one that needs to settle down, I think you must
> have been reading some other thread.
I politely asked you to change the tone of your requests, yet you
continue to be confrontational. Please stop. Comments such as "that's
ridiculous" and "that's a very bad idea" and repeatedly saying "you're
wrong" when you've clearly shown that you don't understand why things
are the way they are now is just causing trouble. You have issues with
Typo and want help. Is this really how you ask for help?
>> I've made it abundantly clear that I am 100% uninterested in installation
> tweaks right now because I am dealing with bugs in Typo. That's my
> front-burner issue. If these bugs can't get resolved, the installation
> issues are irrelevant. I appreciate you explaining the rationale for
> Mongrel, et. al., above, nevertheless.
You're welcome, and thank you for saying so.